Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Easson v London & NE Railway

318 words (1 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Easson v LNER [1944] 2 KB 421



The claimant was a four-year-old child who fell out of a moving train between stations and was injured as a result. The fall would not have been possible had one of the train doors not been open at the time, but there was no way to know why the door was open. The claimant sued the defendant railway company in the tort of negligence.


Establishing negligence involves establishing that the defendant breached their duty of care to the claimant. To establish breach, the claimant must prove that the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would in their position.

Where it is not possible for the claimant to prove exactly what the cause of the accident was, the court will assume negligence has occurred if the defendant was in control of the situation and the accident was not one which normally occurs without carelessness. This is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. If established, the defendant must adduce evidence that they were not negligent or be found liable.

The issue in this case was the level of control the claimant needed to establish to be able to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.


The Court of Appeal held that this was not a case where res ipsa loquitur was applicable.

They held that for the doctrine to apply, the defendant needed to have control over the situation at the time of the accident.

In this case, the train company could not reasonably be expected to have continuous control over the doors of a moving train which was not near a station. As there was no evidence explaining why the door was open, negligence could not be presumed.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles